User talk:Sniperz/New York-class Frigate
NCF for: *Having a plasma based mac cannon. If it had this, then if would be another type of weapon, not a MAC. *Having Plasma missiles and energy shield. How would this technology get integrated into a UNSC warship? Especially less then 20 years after the conclusion of the Human-Covenant War. *"Cheap way to patrol and defend trade routes and their own empire"...Energy shield tech would not be cheap, and warships are not cheap either. With Shields, Frigates are not 'throw-away' ships like HCW frigates. And there is no need for trade routes with the existence of 'Slipspace' faster-then-light travel. Please, before you go attacking an article, get your facts straight. You are indeed correct that a plasma based MAC would be impossible, notably because accelerating a tungsten projectile uses completely different physical processes than homing plasma in, but your other points are less accurate. For one, plasma weapons and shielding would not be hard to integrate with UNSC craft, especially in 20 years time. Do you know what’s possible technologically in 20 years? 20 years ago the best computers had only a few gigs of memory and took up significant space. Now 70 gigs fits in something smaller than your palm. With the aid of the Sangheili, this technology could be integrated into UNSC standards in a very short time. Not to mention that the UNSC was already showing early signs of mastering energy weapons near the end of the Great War--notably, MJOLNIR shielding, bubble shields, SPARTAN lasers, etc. Now, onto your second point. There is no way to tell how much energy shielding would cost, as it is unknown how much it costs when produced on a high-level, industrial scale (ie, Covenant, or UNSC post-war). It could be cheap, in fact--the presence of shields on most Covenant devices perhaps indicates that it is--but it is not known definitively, so no conclusion can be made on the cost factor, and thus is not a valid point with which to criticize the article. In addition, the addition of shields does not change the frigates overall combat mission (aka, adding shields won’t change a ship from being a throwaway ship to being a non-throwaway ship), because if a frigate is equipped with shields, logically, the other ships in the arsenal would also be equipped with them, keeping it at the same level below, as effectiveness would increase proportionally throughout the fleet. With that in mind, warships are not cheap, yes, but relatively speaking, a frigate would be cheaper than a battle cruiser or even a destroyer, making it indeed a cheap way to patrol their trade routes, relatively. Finally, because the exact nature of how ships move about in slipspace has not been completely disclosed (IE, can they turn in slipspace, or do they have to exit, reorient, and initiate a separate jump?), one could reason that “trade routes” could indeed exist, though instead of an actual physical route, they could simply be “exit points” where ships leave slipspace to reorient. In addition, “trade routes” could simply be a broad term used to describe the areas around planets used by freighters to accelerate to enter slipspace where they could be prey to pirates or marauders. Please think your attacks out in full before placing an NCF, please. Spartan 501 knows what he's talking about. 20 years is a long time for technological standards and most tech devices today become outdated within a year. Just five years ago, we were all still using CDs now everyone has a few hundred songs on MP3 players. If Humanity came into contact with advanced alien technology that they've been around and in some cases used, hell yeah we would learn to integrate it into our own technology. As for everything else, Spartan 501 already said what I was thinking so it wouldnt make much sense to put it all up but basically, Spartan-118 will NCF anything he isnt able to understand or fully think about and Gruntjackal thinks he's some sort of professional critic when half of his articles are NCF themselves.--Kamikaz 00:35, October 28, 2009 (UTC) Kamikaz, you do realize that: At least I think before I comment on an article. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. According to the rules (I think you might want to try reading them sometime), I marked this page NCF for the downright impossibility of the weapon systems. From there, I moved on to explain what else I saw wrong with the article, which is opinionated, as some people don't see the same thing. And also Kamikaz, if you don't have anything productive to say, you are just as bad as Gruntijackal. So, don't say it. And also, don't flame. I wasnt flaming, its my opinion.--Kamikaz 22:56, November 4, 2009 (UTC) One little note; I don't think that plasma would be considered a consumable...Papayaking 03:36, November 26, 2009 (UTC) It is correct that plama based missiles would need a seperate magnetic interface, but saying this is impossible is simply incorrect. If it is impossible, then how is it possible for Covenant forces to use plasma in charges and explosives, such as plasma grenades and plasma charges (both canonized in the books and games)? It is simply wrong to say that "plasma based missiles" (as cliche as the term may be) is impossible; a simple upscaling of the existing technology would be all that was required. Secondly, your point on slipspace is debatable. Attack is not the problem that would neccessitate "trade routes"; gravity would do that. Gravity has been proven to effect slipspace travel, and thus is is possible that ships would have to exit around certain areas with strong gravitational pulls (such as stars, planets, black holes, etc.) to avoid problems, thus creating areas that could be considered (in broad terms) trade routes or "jump points". It may be possible in slipspace to go stright through a star,and ignore the mass and gravitational pull completely, but it may also be neccessary to exit. We can't KNOW for certain, however, because canon has never clarified this exact detail, making this point up to debate, and thus not a valid argument against the article. It could go either way, and you can certainly choose to have your craft be able to ignore gravitational pull in slipspace in your articles, but in his, he can choose to have them not, because theres no proof either way. In addition, based on the information provided in the article (if one takes the time to read it) it is clear that this "plasma based MAC" is actually not a MAC at all (as the article actually states) and instead, likely, the same technique employed in first strike by the ascendant justice in the Eridanus Belt to destroy a pursuing Covenant ship (focusing the plasma with a MAC gun's accelerator coils). Thank you, sniperz I have something to ask i have changed a lot in my article. Whet it is still ncf what up whit that? ( 03:40, November 27, 2009 (UTC)) a NCF is a tag indicating that your article is "Not canon friendly" and requires changing. NCF tags can only be removed by moderators, so please do not attempt to remove it and instead talk to them about the article. In addition, for the sake of the other users, please use proper grammar in your posts (or use a word processor such as microsoft word's spellcheck). In addition, please sign your edits using four ~ keys. Thank you, Nomination for Namespace For #As per above conversation, and NCF policy. #Do not insult me. 18:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC)